Agenda - 08-24-1987 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

6 The existing land use and the population density in question appear to be a subjective evaluation as to whether the area is in or is adjoining higher density area. His contention is that it is in the higher density area. Mr. Chandler continued that these same criteria were in effect in 1985 when an application for a secondary amendment to the Land Use Plan was made pertaining to the 1.41 acre tract located between the 0.59 acres and the concrete plant. Recognizing the critical need resulting from the changed conditions and environmental problem, the Land Use Plan amendment for the 1.41 acre tract was granted. Mr. Chandler proceeded with slides of the property in order to show the location of the 0.59 acres and the surrounding commercial uses. There were also slides of the retention ponds and reclamation system. Mr. Chandler indicated that when he submits an application for rezoning and issuance of a Conditional Use Permit he would make a detailed presentation concerning the exact location and the nature of the retention ponds and the recycling equipment and the effect of such uses on neighboring property. He noted that such a detailed presentation was not appropriate at this hearing. He asked that Phil Post, the project engineer, talk about the conditions which created the necessity of the retention ponds and Tom Capewell, an appraiser, speak concerning the fact that the secondary amendment to the Land Use Plan will not create a situation which will result in there being an adverse effect on the fair market value of the surrounding area. PHIL POST, the project engineer, gave background information regarding the changed conditions, and the technical reasons why the original request was brought to the Board and approved, and added further information about the Planning Staff's questions with respect to the appropriateness of the Land Use Plan change. Post addressed the concern of the existence of public services and utilities. He indicated that there is in place water lines, power lines, and telephone lines. There is an excellent location for the road transportation system and the railroad transportation system as well. Post stated that the surrounding and existing land uses were compatible with what would be a very small expansion of the concrete plant operation. Population density does not seem to be applicable in this case as one of the criteria. The primary impetus for the request is to bring the plant into compliance with the most up-to-date environmental guidelines. He explained how the runoff would be captured by the ponds and recycled to be used in making concrete. Post reemphasized that the system required by DEM is in place and operating as intended. This request, if approved, would bring the applicant in compliance with the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. The 0.59 acre tract of land would be used as a permanent buffer which would bring the plant further into compliance with the buffering requirements that have been added. Planning Board Member Chris Best asked what was being stored on the western end of the property and Mr. Chandler stated that nothing is on the land at this time. Previously, concrete barriers used in the construction of 1-40 were stored in the area. In answer to a question from Best on the location of the ponds, Post noted that the present location of the ponds would allow all runoff components to be contained on one site. Chandler explained the process used in washing down the concrete trucks at the end of the day. Commissioner Willhoit asked that Phil Post address the fact that the ponds, if located on the western side of the property, could have resulted in them being part of the land already properly zoned and would not have